Big Bang Proven False?

[Bonky]

True enough, but is the reverse the case?   Do we let what we interpret in Scripture filter how we interpret scientific data?  If we know the answers already, why go through all the work of basic research?

Interesting. When the bible talks about the "sun standing still", people know [via science] to realize that what the author is describing is that the EARTH stopped. So there are cases when people use scientific knowledge to help interpret scripture.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Bonky

[Enoch2021]

 

True enough, but is the reverse the case?   Do we let what we interpret in Scripture filter how we interpret scientific data?  If we know the answers already, why go through all the work of basic research?

Interesting. When the bible talks about the "sun standing still", people know [via science] to realize that what the author is describing is that the EARTH stopped. So there are cases when people use scientific knowledge to help interpret scripture.

 

 

================================================================================

 

They would also realize that the request came from and was a description of what happened from "Joshua's Perspective".  Also, does the Lack of "technical details" of the "How" of what was Requested and Observed, in any way compromise the lesson or what the story was trying to convey?

 

The Holy Bible is not a Science Book; however, by it's nature, does contain what could be interpreted as "science-type" statements.

[gray wolf]

 

 

We let GOD be GOD... and let Scripture define Scripture and under no circumstance use "science" as our Hermeneutics filter.

True enough, but is the reverse the case?   Do we let what we interpret in Scripture filter how we interpret scientific data?  If we know the answers already, why go through all the work of basic research? 

 

 

 

================================================================

 

If we know the answers already, why go through all the work of basic research?

 

Depends on what "answers" you're looking for and how you define "Scientific Data".

I'm not playing with words, but rather referring to a case where the mechanism or origin of a phenomena is not understood.  Do we say that it must be supernatural and investigate no further?  For centuries, almost no science was done, since they had all they thought they needed to know.  Able minds were preoccupied with the mysteries of faith rather than investigation into the workings of the natural world.  I am not stating that there is no creator, but He appears to have put things in motion and they manage on their own without constant supervision. 

[Bonky]

================================================================================

 

They would also realize that the request came from and was a description of what happened from "Joshua's Perspective".  Also, does the Lack of "technical details" of the "How" of what was Requested and Observed, in any way compromise the lesson or what the story was trying to convey?

 

The Holy Bible is not a Science Book; however, by it's nature, does contain what could be interpreted as "science-type" statements.

Right they would realize this because of our scientific understanding of the world.

I'm not sure what a "science-type" statement is. I recall that you are very very concerned about observation, testing etc. So these science type statements need to be able to be analyzed in a lab environment right?

[Enoch2021]

 

================================================================================

 

They would also realize that the request came from and was a description of what happened from "Joshua's Perspective".  Also, does the Lack of "technical details" of the "How" of what was Requested and Observed, in any way compromise the lesson or what the story was trying to convey?

 

The Holy Bible is not a Science Book; however, by it's nature, does contain what could be interpreted as "science-type" statements.

Right they would realize this because of our scientific understanding of the world.

I'm not sure what a "science-type" statement is. I recall that you are very very concerned about observation, testing etc. So these science type statements need to be able to be analyzed in a lab environment right?

 

 

 

===================================================================================

 

Right they would realize this because of our scientific understanding of the world.

 

Actually the first few hundred times I read this, it never struck me personally to even question it.  It's Irrelevant to the story IMHO.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what a "science-type" statement is. I recall that you are very very concerned about observation, testing etc. So these science type statements need to be able to be analyzed in a lab environment right?

 

 

Just a few to highlight what I meant by "Science-Type":

 

"(Genesis 17:12) "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you..."

 

How did they know that Prothrombin and Vit K Peak on the eighth day? Trial and Error?

 

(Psalms 19:6) "His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his CIRCUIT unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof."

 

This is referring to the Sun. Did you know that the Voltage Profile of a Solid State PNP Transistor can be precisely superimposed on the Voltage Profile of the Sun?

 

(Job 38:31) "Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?"

 

Did you know that the Stars that make up these Two constellations are relatively very close in Proximity. Did you know that the Stars in ALL the other constellations ARE NOT. If ANY OTHER constellations were mentioned this would have been nonsensical.

[Enoch2021]

I'm not playing with words, but rather referring to a case where the mechanism or origin of a phenomena is not understood.  Do we say that it must be supernatural and investigate no further?  For centuries, almost no science was done, since they had all they thought they needed to know.  Able minds were preoccupied with the mysteries of faith rather than investigation into the workings of the natural world.  I am not stating that there is no creator, but He appears to have put things in motion and they manage on their own without constant supervision. 

 

========================================================

 

Grey----You're making a lot of Generalized statements here.

 

Who are "They"?

 

 

I'm not playing with words,

 

I didn't say you were.

 

 

"For centuries, almost no science was done, since they had all they thought they needed to know."

 

Please be more specific here: Who//When/Where?

[gray wolf]

They meaning the learned class,  While the Muslims were practicing science (their "dreamers" observing and recording the natural world), the Christian world was focused on ecclesiastical matters such as transubstantiation and the virgin Mary and other subjects.  Not to disparage these subjects, but the keenest minds were occupied with church matters and we did not advance until much later.  Can you imagine if Thomas Aquinas had been a physicist, lol?

[Bonky]

Just a few to highlight what I meant by "Science-Type":

 

"(Genesis 17:12) "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you..."

 

How did they know that Prothrombin and Vit K Peak on the eighth day? Trial and Error?

Well if you're concerned about bleeding my suggestion would be to not cut your genitals to begin with. Now some say "It's a good health measure to circumcise", which my response is, that doesn't sound like a good design then does it? I read some Jewish perspective on why God would have suggested the 8th day and it doesn't have anything to do with blood clotting. What I read was that Jewish tradition holds that the first 7 days represent the finished creation of the physical world in 7 days, the 8th transcends the physical world and initiates the child into the Abrahamic covenant.

(Psalms 19:6) "His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his CIRCUIT unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof."

 

This is referring to the Sun. Did you know that the Voltage Profile of a Solid State PNP Transistor can be precisely superimposed on the Voltage Profile of the Sun?

I'm not sure I understand the connection you're trying to make here.

 

(Job 38:31) "Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?"

 

Did you know that the Stars that make up these Two constellations are relatively very close in Proximity. Did you know that the Stars in ALL the other constellations ARE NOT. If ANY OTHER constellations were mentioned this would have been nonsensical.

I fail to see why this is so miraculous. The bible doesn't mention these two being close in proximity does it? You seem to be imposing meaning to this passage that this passage doesn't actually support.

[Jzyehoshua]

 

 

Observation is the main tool of science.   Observation, replication are the heart of experimentation.

 

And yes, you cannot know as proven fact, in the world of science, what you can't observe directly. 

 

All you can do is provide evidence of that you think supports the big bang.  You cannot prove it empirically.

 

 

Nobody has ever seen an atom directly, with or without a microscope. Nevertheless, i think we all agree they exist. 

And it has been observated that the universe is expanding, so if something expands, it had to start somewhere,  doesnt matter if it is 5000 or 13.7 billion years ago.

but because we have observated that the universe is billions of lightyears in seize, and light has a limited speed, it is impossible the that light has traveled billions of lightyears towards us in just 5000 years.

Not that that is the only evidence:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/17/tech/innovation/big-bang-gravitational-waves/

 

By the way in the begin post i saw the mentioning of a quasar. 5000 years is totally NOT enough time to even enough time to form an apropirate star for it, not even speaking of the quasar itself.

Also look at the fact that the fotons of the quasar had to travel towards us with the limited light speed. And the quasar happened much more than 5000 lightyears away from us.

I can continue with this for a very long time... I know much about astronomie and physics.

 

 

Well, atoms have been photographed from the inside using a quantum microscope. The Big Bang has not only never been witnessed but doesn't even have a working theoretical model yet.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/05/28/amazing-first-ever-photograph-inside-hydrogen-atom

 

http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v10/n4/full/nmat2957.html

 

In fact, when Stephen Hawkins addressed the issue, he said it would involve a singularity where all the laws of physics broke down, so actually there isn't even a way to explain a Big Bang without denying the laws of physics existed.

 

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

[Jzyehoshua]

There are three evidences I typically point to as contradicting the Big Bang theory:

1. Accelerating expansion of the universe. The universe under the Big Bang model was supposed to see decelerating expansion, not accelerating. Scientists invented hypothetical, entirely unevidenced hypotheses called Dark Energy and Dark Matter to try and explain this expansion when it was discovered in 1999. It is arguably the biggest headache for Big Bang theorists to explain.

 

2. Lack of antimatter. The Big Bang should have created equal parts matter and antimatter, but all the antimatter is missing.

 

3. Planet formation. Recently a giant planet, HD 106906 b, was discovered far bigger and heavier than should have been created by a Big Bang.